The court granted further and better particulars in a case involving defamation and unlawful interference claims, finding the pleadings too vague and general.
The proposed replacement of the new-car Hyundai dealership with a used-car dealership and related businesses was a change in the current use requiring mortgagee consent; given the outstanding mortgage exposure, evidence of environmental contamination and the weaker financial profile of the proposed businesses, the mortgagee's refusal to consent was reasonable to protect its security; communications by the mortgagee to Hyundai were proper notifications to protect security and did not constitute intentional or negligent interference; accordingly the plaintiffs' action was dismissed with costs.
The chambers judge erred by failing to give weight to the defendant's venue choice arising from his counterclaim and to the principle that defamation jury trials should be held where the claimant's reputation is established; when those factors are considered, the balance of convenience favours changing the trial venue to Pictou, so the dismissal below was set aside and the change ordered.